Judicial Attributes and Sentencing-Deviation Cases: Do Sex, Race, and Politics Matter?

Abstract

Most scholars focus on whether the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines effectively constrain judges or result in disparate decisions based on a court's or defendant's location. With few exceptions, studies of the effect of judicial attributes on federal-district-court-sentencing cases have been stymied by the United States Sentencing Commission's refusal to release judges' names in their databases of sentencing facts and decisions. We test the effect of a range of judicial attributes on sentencing decisions using a database where judges must consider requests to depart from the Guidelines and the identity of judges is clearly discernible, and we analyze the effect of the landmark case U.S. v. Booker (2005). These unique data shed light on a neglected area of research, namely, whether judicial attributes traditionally analyzed by scholars affect sentencing-deviation decisions in federal district courts. The results show that judges appointed by Democratic presidents and those deciding cases after Booker tend to favor defendants more than those appointed by Republican presidents and those deciding the cases before Booker. However, female judges, especially when appointed by Republican presidents, are less likely to favor defendants.